Bachmann: My husband, to whom I am subservient in all things, is off limits

Presidential candidate Michele Bachmann doesn’t want the press checking out her husband’s beliefs. Or anything else about him. But she has publicly declared herself subservient to him in all things; doesn’t that make him as much a candidate as she?

Michele Bachmann is an evangelical Christian. As such, she believes — and has publicly stated — that wives are to be subservient to their husbands in all things. After all, the Bible says so.

Jill Lawrence of the Daily Beast points out how Bachmann’s professional life has, in fact, been directed by her husband. Or, at least, that’s Bachmann’s own account:

Back in October 2006, recounting her life journey to an audience at the Living Word Christian Center, Bachmann talked about “receiving Jesus” at 16, studying hard, meeting her future husband at college, and earning a law degree. “My husband said ‘Now you need to go and get a post-doctorate degree in tax law.’ Tax law! I hate taxes—why should I go and do something like that?” she told the audience. “But the Lord says be submissive. Wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands.”

Bachmann said she never had taken a tax course, “never had a desire for it,” but “I was going to be faithful to what I felt God was calling me to do through my husband.” Later, when the opportunity to run for Congress arose, “my husband said, ‘You need to do this,’ and I wasn’t so sure.” She became sure two days later, after praying and fasting with her husband.

Laying aside Bachmann’s own proclamation of unquestioning obedience to her husband, it would be ridiculous to suggest that First Spouses do not play a substantive role in the White House, or that they are not part of the deal in an election.

The Clintons were called “Billary” for a reason. Remember “HillaryCare”?

Nancy Reagan consulted astrologers; how much of that played into Ronald’s foreign policy?

Eleanor Roosevelt was politically active before FDR was elected, after his death, and the whole time in between.

Edith Wilson had significant control over husband Woodrow Wilson’s schedule and affairs even before his 1919 stroke . . . after which it is widely believed she effectively served in his stead.

The only First Spouse in recent memory who does not appear to have had a major impact on policy was Laura Bush, whose memoir, Spoken from the Heart, indicates her 180-degree opposition to her husband’s views on major social issues.

Michele Obama? She’s certainly fair game. I hear her name brought up more often on Laura Ingraham than I do Barack’s. Nearly every day there is whining about her anti-obesity initiative, as though it’s a bad thing to provide kids with real food at school.

Is it because he called gay people “barbarians” who “need to be disciplined”? Is it simply because many have speculated that her somewhat effeminate husband is off-limits in the bedroom to her?

Pure Film Creative has gone so far as to offer a $10,000 reward to anyone who can provide substantive evidence of having had same-sex relations with Marcus.

Should the sexual orientation of Marcus Bachmann be a topic for discussion at all? Perhaps not; his bigotry toward a substantial segment of Americans is already well-documented, as is his wife’s. I, for one, couldn’t care less what turns Marcus Bachmann’s crank.

His beliefs, on the other hand — especially since she has so proudly declared herself “subservient in all things” to him — are rightfully very much on the table. It’s perfectly reasonable to expect his views, like those of nearly every First Spouse, would shape public policy.

The business he and the candidate co-own is an illustration of their beliefs, what they believe to be a good thing to do. They believe strongly enough that repressing sexual orientation is a “good thing” that they made a business out of it.

Michele, if you don’t want your husband’s beliefs, business practices, and personal life examined, the same way every candidate’s spouse is examined, maybe you shouldn’t have him on every stage next to you at nearly every appearance, or misty-eyed and applauding in the audience in full view of the cameras. Don’t want us to discuss him? Keep him out of your campaign ads. Desire to be viewed apart from him? Leave him home when you go on campaign tours.

Or maybe, just maybe, if you don’t want your personal life and your husband’s under the microscope, don’t run for the highest office in the land.

7 Responses to Bachmann: My husband, to whom I am subservient in all things, is off limits

This is want scares me the most. Michelle Bachmann is crazy enough for starters, but there's no telling how big a whack-job her husband is. And if she is, indeed, subservient to her husband in all things, who knows what "really great ideas" he'll come up with for her to follow.

If she is subservient to him in all things than we cannot elect her president. In her own words we would not be electing her we would be electing him and I do not want a homophobe who believes in fairy tales for my president.

How is this any different than how women are viewed in Islam? If she has her way, we'll have our own form of sharia law . We really are living in an Idiocracy! Europeans laugh at us already. How would any country take us seriously with this idiot as our leader/??? ugh, glad I have a passport